Jeanette
S. Hale (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant
to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act
(“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010),
seeking judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) denying her applications for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), Supplemental Security
Income (“SSI”), and a period of disability under
Titles II and XVI of the Act.

The
Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case,
including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final
judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF
No. 5.[1] Pursuant to this authority, the Court
issues this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a
final judgment in this matter.

1.
Background:

Plaintiff
protectively filed her disability applications on March 17,
2010. (Tr. 10). In her applications, Plaintiff alleges being
disabled due to peripheral neuropathy and panic disorder.
(Tr. 177). At the administrative hearing in this matter,
Plaintiff also alleged being disabled due to facial pain
caused by trigeminal neuralgia. (Tr. 36). Plaintiff alleges
an onset date of March 31, 2008. (Tr. 10). These applications
were denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Tr.
49-52).

After
Plaintiff's applications were denied, Plaintiff requested
an administrative hearing on her applications, and this
hearing request was granted. (Tr. 66-74). Thereafter, on
September 19, 2011, the ALJ held an administrative hearing on
Plaintiff's applications. (Tr. 26-48). At this hearing,
Plaintiff was present and was represented by Fred Cadell.
Id. Plaintiff and Vocational Expert
(“VE”) John Massey testified at this hearing.
Id. During this hearing, Plaintiff testified she was
thirty-seven (37) years old, which is defined as a
“younger person” under 20 C.F.R. §
416.963(c) (2008) (SSI) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c)
(2008) (DIB). (Tr. 29). As for her education, Plaintiff
testified she had received her high school diploma and had
completed some college. (Tr. 29).

A.
ALJ's First Administrative Decision

On
October 28, 2011, after the administrative hearing, the ALJ
entered a fully unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's
applications. (Tr. 7-20). The ALJ found Plaintiff met the
insured status requirements of the Act through December 31,
2013. (Tr. 12, Finding 1). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had
not engaged in Substantial Gainful Activity
(“SGA”) since March 31, 2008, her alleged onset
date. (Tr. 12, Finding 2). The ALJ determined Plaintiff had
the following severe impairment: peripheral neuropathy. (Tr.
12-13, Finding 3). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff's
impairment did not meet or medically equal the requirements
of any of the Listings of Impairments in Appendix 1 to
Subpart P of Regulations No. 4 (“Listings”). (Tr.
14, Finding 4).

In this
decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 14-18, Finding 5).
First, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's subjective
complaints and found her claimed limitations were not
entirely credible. Id. Second, the ALJ determined
Plaintiff retained the capacity for the following:

After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in
20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except that she is limited
in the abilities to push and pull and operate hand or foot
controls. She can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch,
crawl and climb ladders, ropes and scaffolds and can
frequently climb ramps and stairs. She must also avoid
concentrated exposure to hazards such as machinery and
heights.

Id.

The ALJ
evaluated Plaintiff's Past Relevant Work
(“PRW”) and found Plaintiff was unable to perform
any of her PRW. (Tr. 18-19, Finding 6). The ALJ then
determined whether Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform
other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national
economy. (Tr. 18-19, Finding 10). In addressing this issue,
the ALJ applied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines or the
“Grids.” Id. Specifically, the ALJ found
that under Rule 201.28 of the Grids, Plaintiff was not
disabled. Id. Accordingly, the ALJ found Plaintiff
had not been under a disability, as defined by the Act, from
March 31, 2008 through the date of his decision or through
October 28, 2011. (Tr. 19, Finding 11).

Plaintiff
sought review with the Appeals Council. (Tr. 4). Thereafter,
on October 1, 2012, the Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff's request for review. (Tr. 1-3). Plaintiff then
appealed her case to this Court, and this Court reversed and
remanded Plaintiff's case for further administrative
review. See Hale v. SSA, 2:12-cv-02302 (ECF No. 20).

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.